Two interesting exchanges over vouchers took place in the blogosphere.
At TPMCafe, Stanford University Professor Martin Carnoy, who was written often on education, sparked quite a thread with a commentary deconstructing the case for vouchers. Says Carnoy:
These ideas tap into a widely held view that markets do a better job than the public sector in just about every economic activity. So a lot of people want to believe that sending poor children to private school and increasing competition among schools should make a big difference in places where public school students are not doing well. Yet, there is only very sporadic evidence of any real educational improvement due to vouchers or to any other form of market competition in education.
Much of the discussion in this thread is quite high quality. You will, however, have to work your way through one commentator who opines…
Compulsory attendance at school is child labor. Children work, unpaid, as window-dressing in a massive make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.
What? You didn’t know it was teacher unions — and not Wal Mart — that was the biggest purveyor of child labor in America? Ban the Math Sweatshop!